# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30493 Summary Calendar

**Allstate Life Insurance Company,** Plaintiff **,**

versus **Yvette Marcelle,** Defendant

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Eunice Valleria Moore**

**- Lavigne; The Estate of Doctor**  **Marilyn Ray**

**- Jones; The Ray** 

**- Jones Family Irrevocable**  **Trust,** Defendants

— Appellants

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 469 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022No. 22

- 30493

2 Befor e **Davis, Duncan,** and **Engelhardt** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * In this interpleader action instituted by Allstate Life Insurance Company (“Allstate”) , Defendants

- Appellants, Earl Marcelle, Eunice Valleria Moore

- Lavigne, the Estate of Dr. Marilyn Ray

- Jones, and the Ray

Jones Family Irrevocable Trust (collectively “Moore

- Lavigne Defendants ”) , appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in f avor of Co

Defendant, Yvette Marcelle. Because we lack jurisdiction, this appeal is **DISMISSED.**
BACKGROUND
Allstate instituted an interpleader action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 , alleging that Dr. Marilyn Ray

- Jones purchased a n Allstate life insurance policy in December 2004. Allstate state d that Dr. Ray

- Jones died in October 2020, and that her son, who was designated as the primary beneficiary o n the policy, died approximately one year b efore in November 2019. Allstate further alleged that Defendant Yvette Marcelle was designated as the contingent beneficiary on the policy and that she had made a claim for the policy’s death benefit . However, the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants also had contac ted Allstate, asserting that Dr. Ray

- Jones intended to have the policy’s proceeds pass into her estate and the Ray

- Jones Family Irrevocable Trust, of which Earl Marcelle and Eunice Valleria Moore

Lavigne are the trustees.
Allstate contended that it was “ an innocent, disinterested stakeholder” and was “unable to determine the respective interests of the known potential claimants to the [p]olicy’s death benefit.” Allstate sought “resolution of the conflicting claims in good faith” by instituting an

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022No. 22

- 30493

3 interpl eader action. Although Allstate alleged that it had “no independent liability to any of the defendants,” along with their answer to Allstate’s complaint, the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants filed a counterclaim against Allstate for negligence and breach of contr act

. 1 Specifically, they alleged that Allstate representatives erroneously communicated that there was no contingent beneficiary designated for the policy’s proceeds and that the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants relied on the erroneous and misleading information to their detriment. Defendant Yvette Marcelle moved for summary judgment . She argued that because the primary beneficiary on the policy was deceased and she was the designated contingent beneficiary, she was entitled to the policy’s proceeds

. The Moore

- Lavigne Defendants opposed the motion, asserting that because Dr. Ray

- Jones “substantially complied” with the policy provisions, summary judgment was not warranted.
The district court determined that Defendant Yvette Marcelle was entitled to t he proceeds and issued an order grant ing summary judgment in her favor. In its ruling, the district court noted that the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants had filed a counterclaim against Allstate. The Moore

- Lavigne Defendants subsequently filed a notice of appea l of the district court’s order granting summary judgment.
DISCUSSION On appeal, t he Moore

- Lavigne Defendants argu e that the district
court erred in granting Defendant Yvette Marcelle’s motion for summary judgment.

1 We have noted that in an interpleader action, “[o]nce the stakeholder joins the claimants, a claimant may file a counterclaim against the stakeholder as an opposing party.” N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel , 142 F.3d 873, 881 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitt ed). Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2022No. 22

- 30493

4 “We have jurisdiction to examine the basis of our own jurisdiction.” 2 In their jurisdictional statement, the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants “invoke[]” the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides the courts of appeals with “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” As described below, however, the order granting summary judgment is not a “final decision” of the district court. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction. “A decision is final when it ends the litigatio n on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” 3 “When an action involves multiple parties, any decision that adjudicates the liability of fewer than all of the parties does not terminate the action and is therefore not appealable unless certified by the district judge under Rule 54(b).” 4 In this multiple

- party interpleader action , the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants’ counterclaim against Allstate r emain s pending in district court. In its order granting summary judgment, t he district court specifically acknowledged that the Moore

- Lavigne Defendants had filed a counterclaim against Allstate. Consequently, to be appealable, the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Yvette Marcelle had to be certifi ed as “final” by the district court under Rule 54(b) or as appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which did not occur. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

2 Doe v. Tonti Mgmt. Co., L.L.C. , 24 F.4th 1005, 1008 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

3 Askanese v. Livingwell, Inc. , 981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4 Id. (citation omitted). Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2022No. 22

- 30493

5 Accordingly, because there is no final and appealable decision , this appeal i s **DISMISSED** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2022